Theo Verelst Diary Page

Sun Nov 25 2001, 21:27 PM

I've decided after good example to write some diary pages with toughts
and events.

Oh, in case anybody fails to understand, I'd like to remind them that
these pages are copyrighted, and that everything found here may not be redistributed
in any other way then over this direct link without my prior consent. That
includes family, christianity, and other cheats. The simple reason is that
it may well be that some people have been ill informed because they've spread
illegal 'copies' of my materials even with modifications. Apart from my moral
judgement, that is illegal, and will be treated as such by me. Make as many
references to these pages as you like, make hardcopies, but only of the whole
page, including the html-references, and without changing a iota or tittel...

And if not? I won't hesitate to use legal means to correct wrong that
may be done otherwise. And I am serious. I usually am. I'm not sure I could
get 'attempt to grave emotional assault' out of it, but infrigement on copyright
rules is serious enough. And Jesus called upon us to respect the authorities
of state, so christians would of course never do such a thing. Lying, imagine
that.

Sun Nov 2 2001, 22:27

The 'diary' section of this page was made last week, and some stuff was
prepared then, too. I left it for some time because I was thinking about
the subjects, and also about other things. Someone I take at least serious
made clear that the Hannah Newman I intend to quote on this page got kicked
of sites because of her exposing certain semi religeous systems, so at least
it is reasonable to think about how to deal with exposure of the kinds I'm
into in at least a fundamental way, that is not as fashion, or to put people
in general down, or to make my own religion over the heads of the exposed
systems, or be lets say suggestive or even liarish in the proces, as far
as I can help it.

I remember an audio line, which could act as a soundbyte, though I guess
mainly for myself, of a person whose lets say bible or charismatic christian
(in the sense of including the work and gifts of the holy spirit) course
I followed for several years long ago, in the form of a set of course books
(who has them for copying, preferably in english, that would be nice), Albert
Grimes, of who I at the time I heared one or two tapes. On the tape I remember,
he was speaking about what it means that christ choses the ones He saves
in personal sense, that He sais

And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must
bring

Because there will be those who He ordained when the 'time of the gentiles'
would come, as it has.

He spoke about making people aware of for instance election and calling,
and that it was sometimes hard to even do so in rest because people, and
he mentioned deamons to would try to defy him right out of a congregation
for teaching what he was teaching.

One of the expressions I remember him making very clear is that 'we are
dealing with peoples' lives', as in that when we take the whole of teachings
and the fundamental sides of them together, and treat people on the basis
of important teachings, Christs' teachings, that we are dealing with their
lives. We cannot just teach people they are certain ways, pertaining to
their whole lives, and make it seem or do so with the attitude of not dealing
in the end in essence with all they are, want to be or can be.

Which means that others who do the same must first be exposed, because
there is only one real gospel, the one Jesus himself is the rock of, because
liars and cheats will most probably mess lives, but when people take teachings
serious, or at least listen serious, authoritive teachings about religion,
eternal life, and all other areas of life, which usually are somehow connected,
cover the whole of the life of the possible listeners.

Come to think of it, I'll quote the pasage about the sheep, see what
happens.

Election and calling

As I wrote above that was the title of a tape I remember. For people not
into these kind of subjects, I'll shortly sum up the idea, but not before
making a point very clear. That is that I'm serious as hell about these
subject and that includes that I a) mean what I think and b) that no one
can take the right to explain what I mean or take loosely the way i work
with that or even worse make their own idea on the basis of what I do. Ever.
I mean I don't grant that right. I'm top scientist, and proven to be enough,
I am capabel through at least 20 years of thinking about these things at
least to take a serious point of view and have the capacity to defend it
when I or someone up there at points I'm positive calling me want to, and
I don't allow any crap to happen with what I take serious enough in the
way I have. In short, I make the points I find important because I hold
them for actual truth, and I deal with making them known or even discussing
them in ways I see fit, and no one takes my place. I take no one as higher
in that authority than myself at this moment. Not about the greek translation,
that's fine, there are without question thousands who read greek better
than I, but the doctrines I don't take any higher in that I am aware of,
and that only changes when I say so. And someone claiming a christian
position higher than I will have to proof so against me, and no one I know
at this moment qualifies. If other like to try, I first assume I am at least
equal, unless I'm proven wrong in my opinion, which is in reasonableness,
but with my personal consent, and no other way. Otherwise there are
two christian leaders which are not on one line, that other, and me. Always,
I don't make that different, I claim to be top in that, and if someone feels
challenged or compelled to serious disclaim that, let them make themselves
known, I perfectly capable of being top scientist about it, but per default
they are at best equal in authority, and no one I am aware of, know, or
have somehow perceived qualifies. Not that there aren't subjects I'd love
to learn about, but the whole of fundamental doctrines are in certain language
mine, and I deny everyone else unless I find contentwise reason to think
different. Period, that is non-negotiable.

And quite frankly, I think that position is not problematic, I'm good
for that, but I don't particularly like it, I'm not so much a sucker for
such idea, maybe in some science I can make history in I'd be interested
in going for lets say nobel price (was there laughter?), though currently
I hold that for completely out of the normal question, and maybe I'd persue
some nice and interesting enough carreerwise position, but that place of
at least fellow highest doctrine-wise authority I don't particularly want
for myself. It is not something I have normal ambition for, though in (also
personal) christian sense, I do take it dead (or life) serious that I agree
with the verses I recently also quoted I think where in the words of Paul

Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any
other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him
be accursed.

Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any [man]
preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

So according to the founders of the faith that so many try to use for
themselves, if they change the gospel, damnation is their share.

In the words of Peter himself

2Pe 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people,
even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring
in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon
themselves swift destruction.

2Pe 2:2 And many shall follow their pernicious
ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.

2Pe 2:3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words
make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not,
and their damnation slumbereth not.

2Pe 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast
[them] down to hell, and delivered [them] into chains of darkness, to be
reserved unto judgment;

2Pe 2:5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth
[person], a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world
of the ungodly;

2Pe 2:6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes
condemned [them] with an overthrow, making [them] an ensample unto those
that after should live ungodly;

2Pe 2:7 And delivered just Lot, vexed with the filthy conversation
of the wicked:

2Pe 2:8 (For that righteous man dwelling among them, in seeing
and hearing, vexed [his] righteous soul from day to day with [their] unlawful
deeds;)

2Pe 2:9 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations,
and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:

2Pe 2:10 But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the
lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous [are they], selfwilled,
they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities.

2Pe 2:11 Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might,
bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord.

2Pe 2:12 But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken
and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall
utterly perish in their own corruption;

2Pe 2:13 And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, [as]
they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots [they are] and
blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast
with you;

2Pe 2:14 Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease
from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous
practices; cursed children:

2Pe 2:15 Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray,
following the way of Balaam [the son] of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;

2Pe 2:16 But was rebuked for his iniquity: the dumb ass speaking
with man's voice forbad the madness of the prophet.

2Pe 2:17 These are wells without water, clouds that are carried
with a tempest; to whom the mist of darkness is reserved for ever.

2Pe 2:18 For when they speak great swelling [words] of vanity,
they allure through the lusts of the flesh, [through much] wantonness, those
that were clean escaped from them who live in error.

2Pe 2:19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves
are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same
is he brought in bondage.

2Pe 2:20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the
world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are
again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them
than the beginning.

2Pe 2:21 For it had been better for them not to have known
the way of righteousness, than, after they have known [it], to turn from
the holy commandment delivered unto them.

2Pe 2:22 But it is happened unto them according to the true
proverb, The dog [is] turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was
washed to her wallowing in the mire.

Also the next chapter (see for instance the
'blue bible'
online) is interesting and reassuring to stay with Gods mercy and grace
instead of falling for conningly devised fables and doctrines and methods
which are not going to help you in a good way.

Oh, and I'm not affraid of being called to the nuthouse again for making
such claims, I think that station is about passed, but just to make sure
I understand what people are playing at, I mean no ego trip or provocation,
I mean it that I take it serious that certain teachings are essential in
peoples lives, that they in essential ways form the basis for their existence
in this world the way it is and for their responses. And I don't think anyone
will seriously deny that in sufficiently lets say rational circles, including
the humanities and medical science. So I play at being an actual engineer,
not the bachelor kind, in (f*..) electrical engineering, with long standing
interest in these areas who has this opinion, claiming enough logic and
reason to be taken fully serious at that level, and anyone not up to that
will not be considered higher as person who can claim to want to teach in
my place. There may be (as some put it) bums who have no finished primary
school I can take serious with maybe even my life, put aside women with
no authority granted from any serious person I can see leaders with effect
on me in, but I don't allow the position I claim to be taken by anyone unless
I give them that. Period.

And about some who may claim similar credentials, for instance some I've
wanted to leave because I'd started to suspect they might be child abusers:
I take only serious what I find verifiably true, that means I must be able
to for instance surf to a site where they clarify their points of view,
or speak with them, and then of course know that they've lived at least
as holy (as in the normal meaning of the word) as I, and can be taken for
at least as good enough a person and honest and the whole thing, and then
we'll see, and the ones who could claim my education level, or something
like it, maybe minus top physicist, have to fulfull all those and probably
some other obvious conditions to claim my or a similar place, and that's
it. No popes or mafia leaders in my system when it concerns faith, trust,
the way Christ spoke about it. Not even when it would benefit me to give
them that position, as far as I can help it, and I'm certain that is important,
because that sort of corruption without reason makes it possible that so
many are in such miserable lives, and without that reason I don't think
many that try to oppress would be able to do that as much.

Now what about the election and calling, it is biblical that God choses
himself who He saves, and no works of any man are good enough deserve, bring
about, or even anihilate his salvation. I'm not claiming it is not wise
to forget abiding be the simple thou shalt not steal, not swear, not covet,
all that stuff, that is clear enough, one reaps what one saws, but no one
can deserve heaven in the sense that they can speak to God as natural persons
saying, we've now fulfilled this law or performed these deeds, and now we
claim to be yours and justified through your own laws. No one. Not one. Not
me either, that is. Not a chance. But when He did make someone a new person,
we'd better be aware of it that we are called upon to live the new life
He gave, and not confuse it with a maybe polished or warped old one, which
always lies in the corrupted world.

Anyhow in speaking about his own ministry, Grimes made clear that taking
revelation serious about his whereabout, he did not find himself in a hit
and miss life in at least some accordance with the will God made clear,
I'm sure, though how would I judge how much. Everywhere one goes on the
basis of Gods clear enough revelation, he found His elect.

My sheep hear my voice

Jesus' words, not mine:

Jhn 10:1 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not
by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same
is a thief and a robber.

Jhn 10:2 But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd
of the sheep.

Jhn 10:3 To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his
voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.

Jhn 10:4 And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before
them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.

Jhn 10:5 And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee
from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.

Jhn 10:6 This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood
not what things they were which he spake unto them.

Jhn 10:7 Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I
say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.

Jhn 10:8 All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers:
but the sheep did not hear them.

Jhn 10:9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall
be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

Jhn 10:10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill,
and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might
have [it] more abundantly.

Jhn 10:11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth
his life for the sheep.

Jhn 10:12 But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd,
whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep,
and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.

Jhn 10:13 The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and
careth not for the sheep.

Jhn 10:14 I am the good shepherd, and know my [sheep], and
am known of mine.

Jhn 10:15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father:
and I lay down my life for the sheep.

Jhn 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold:
them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be
one fold, [and] one shepherd.

Jhn 10:17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down
my life, that I might take it again.

Jhn 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself.
I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment
have I received of my Father.

Jhn 10:19 There was a division therefore again among the Jews
for these sayings.

Jhn 10:20 And many of them said, He hath a devil, and is mad;
why hear ye him?

Jhn 10:21 Others said, These are not the words of him that
hath a devil. Can a devil open the eyes of the blind?

Jhn 10:22 And it was at Jerusalem the feast of the dedication,
and it was winter.

Jhn 10:23 And Jesus walked in the temple in Solomon's porch.

Jhn 10:24 Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto
him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us
plainly.

Jhn 10:25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed
not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.

Jhn 10:26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep,
as I said unto you.

Jhn 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall
never perish, neither shall any [man] pluck them out of my hand.

Jhn 10:29 My Father, which gave [them] me, is greater than
all; and no [man] is able to pluck [them] out of my Father's hand.

Jhn 10:30 I and [my] Father are one.

Jhn 10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

Jhn 10:32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed
you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?

Jhn 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we
stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest
thyself God.

Jhn 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law,
I said, Ye are gods?

Jhn 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God
came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Jhn 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and
sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Jhn 10:37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.

Jhn 10:38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the
works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father [is] in me, and I in
him.

Jhn 10:39 Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped
out of their hand,

Jhn 10:40 And went away again beyond Jordan into the place
where John at first baptized; and there he abode.

Jhn 10:41 And many resorted unto him, and said, John did no
miracle: but all things that John spake of this man were true.

Jhn 10:42 And many believed on him there.

Interestingly enough I just found the following disclaimer on the perseus
site, where tufts university I think rightfully assumed it was a good idea
to make and just about all classical greek writings, and the new testament
and the scott liddel greek lexicon available online:

Warning: the materials on this server, ibis.perseus.tufts.edu,
are draft documents and cannot be quoted or cited as a publication.

which is about the section where the new testament is, and the short
word translation window containing references to the bigger lexicon entries,
and where it is all to clear that sometimes words are not traced to any
other sources than the new testament, and maybe some later christian type
writers.

Vive science.

The tape was about the idea that Jesus speaks about having other sheep
as placing Himself in a position where He is positive he already has them,
even though at that point that might not be a statement true at that point
in time. The idea of Jesus' own being know by Him already, implying He conferes
with no others in that picture, he just calls them his sheep and they
will listen to his voice, and that's it.

New Age

Maybe 4,5 years back, I arrived in Amsterdam with little resources, in not
so pleasant circumstances, but at the time I thought it would at least make
sense to make some work of my greek and hebrew research, and take the opportunity
to write and communicate about it, and maybe get some peoples' attention.
And meanwhile not loose touch with computer and science land, which was
possible using certain library facilities at the time, and I decided I could
stay at least for some time in a (cheap) yought hostel, in fact as it said
on the advertisement (internet I think) and sign a christian one.
Well well. That meant I expected they would have to behave christian, I
guess, without thinking to much about it, except that they had bible hours
every night, which I though might be interesting enough to meet some (mainly
young and probably not too rich or right wing, or lets say conservative
about sleeping conditions) people from all over the world with at least
some interest in faith.

Maybe some nice girls/women (still don't know the right term) there,
too? Why not. So I though lets see what that'll bring, only later hearing
that certain (quote) christian (unquote) roots of their organisation where
infamous for their links with various kinds of pretty deep evil.

Anyhow, I got to know some people, some who worked there, at the time
I didn't have money anymore, I tried to get some whatever job myself even,
though that refused on the grounds that I wasn't foreign (...). Still later
I found out one of the leaders at least had the nerve to be in tough with
at least my parents behind my back wanting to without question at least
continue the idea I was in need of maybe psychological or other help, while
in fact all I needed was a serious enough way away from such idea which
would sure diminish my chances of making a serious fist against some seriously
bad people I wanted to win of and not loose my life and position to, and
a way to make maybe 1/3 a ton of (dutch) money, which both should not be
that special for a qualified engineer with good working experience, except
for needing to deal with referees which are the way I described.

Simple and annoying enough game, so I thought I'd at least make clear
I was capable of both contacts, and of being with more than a few persons
(maybe up to eighty in double beds in a dorm, gmpf) without the aid of a
social worker or psychology to get me up and running (I went there myself),
so that my self chosen (not so short) period of isolation was indeed because
I wanted to, because I needed to think and found more than enough actual
reason to not trust certain persons like my parents and some people I'd
need to deal with without much room for negotiations (basically my landlords
rent deal stunk enough to simply not pay for more than a few months, and
I'd have found it annoying enough to let that be a real threat in the respected
engineer life: no one tolerates a f* dog house with sometimes maybe a dozen
beagles in there within 10 meters of their bedrooms only windows, seriously,
especially when they bark for attention for everything that moves, how crazy
do people get), friends behaved not very logical enough when I made clear
I suspected people I had worked with to be quite bad, and that I didn't
want to deal with them in any other way than to get to such kinds bad. So
basically trusted enough people proved to be not up to standard or some
other way blackmailed or dismayed some might act (I could afford to go against
the grain in ways some couldn't, though others I think could and should
have), anyhow I didn't at all anymore feel like sharing or testing my inner
thoughts much with them, and I did need those, and to make them place enough
in my life to figure various essential things out, about what I would want
my position to be, and about what it all was some I wanted to love without
burdening them with other peoples' blackmail or direct threats.

Anyhow, I thought it might be refreshing a bit to meet some non-dutch
(is it that bad? To me it regularly felt that way), or maybe some who traveled
around enough to be at least somewhat aware of what is right and what isn't,
or maybe just have a not too provincial look on the world (but then again
in a yought hostel..). So I slept at the time in maybe three different places,
two of the kind I described and a few times in a sort of i don't know what
one, more free I guess, though they now changed into some expensive enough
new stylish thing, i donno their deal, they had mixed dorms, which was nice
enough, too.

Anyhow staying for some time in the cheapest of them all (one in the
centre of red light district, the other quiterer (which at times I liked)
a bit away), and met some people, as I said. Not that much remains now,
though probably it could have (though I got some messages here and there),
I was reminded of a swedish woman/girl (still don't know..) who a few times
mentioned that she was aware of lets say the illustre ways of a movement
she summed up as 'new age', of which of course I'd heard long ago, but wrote
of as a lets say softish scene occupying themselves with unadvanced forms
of spiritual tricks making music like maybe health freaks would deal with
things, where they in my opinion should simply have stuck with the idea
that they like simple and restgiving music, and then good enough. Someone
else I met there I still see, but I think I prefer not to go into the subject
now for serious reasons.

Anyhow, I sort of let her speak a few times at least, seriously, and
I liked her, I guess not as in incredibly, but still I though she would
be attractive, and she put some things forward I didn't understand her position
in. Some later I did understand that she was not exactly in a nice and free
life, and that she had been in circumstances not even nice enough to think
about, and probably has not been a very good girl herself in later life,
but still that new age idea didn't match my image, and she seemed quite
clear repeatedly that even though she might not be too knowledgeable about
the whole world, her idea was that she was entitled enough to make clear
that that sort of stuff was there, hidden, and important.

Recently I got an article for viewing about that same idea, new age,
so I was curious, and was sort of fed in the way I remember reading about
just about every sect with some religeous side about 20 years ago, for instance
in freemans' 'every wind of doctrine', which usually was enough for me not
to be diverted from the essential teachings of such sects and their systems,
and of course be aware of what type of deamons would be pestering their
parttakers, which I'm sure realy is true, and to be taken serious for people
who value their freedom.

At the time (in highschool) I didn't like to talk about it much, because
I didn't like the idea of being a fanatic, and also I didn't understand
many things enough to make myself a place even discussing them, and in the
rest of my life I was more than fine and leading enough, so I saw no good
reason to suddenly become a fanatic whimp not being able to understand why
the word was bad as it was, except that I found it easy enough to in myself
find that the basic truths of sinfullness, need for salvation from above
and not by works, and the total depravity of natural man and incapability
of contact with God were truthfull enough doctrines to take serious not
to leave to be off in some delusion or way which would corrupt or blackmail
me or make me miserable.

The new age article was by Hannah Newman, and is on the
web
(this page contains the article I found on another page earlier, the introduction
I hardly read, so I don't utter comments or approval or disapproval).. It
brought back clear associations with writings of that time long ago which
made clear refutations and rebukals understand the errors of certain organisations,
in that time from mainly 'christian' angle, but hers seems more than clear
enough, too.

I just checked, and it seems the link isn't there, lets hope it is just
because of weekend server trouble.

In short, it seems the age of aquarius has provided a whole set of new
lies, taking many semi-religions and beliefs of for instance satanist character
along, and making their way into various places in t the world where they
hope to thrive, where on of the main points appears to be the idea the nazi
in a certain way had to, which seems to have miserably failed, that we must
be prepared Sich heil and heil o great antichrist or satan, or whatever,
and we must all belief in it together, let this and this elected deamon
space, and the superthing will happen, and of course it cannot fail, its
so much power, its incredible. The sacrifice of the masses has been renamed
to a new state of being, and sci fis seem to buy it as candy. A new race
of human beings, and we breed them ourselves, and they'll be great. Arrgghh,
didn't we hear that about 6 million times before? In normal language sort
of 'Jesus Christ, that sucks bad'.

But it seems that many belief, and evil and some powerfull ones, too.
Let only the ones who deserve but that nonsense, sort of please. Democracy
might not even need termincal illness to be taken for not relevant, but
there are limits. Is that realy 39 through 45 achieved, that it takes 50
years for some new shit like that to take place. Couldn't that wait just
a little longer? Do we need another war against zombies with a pr act? I
hope not, though when it is true that in certain places maybe a third of
the people deserve to actually die, preferably immedeately to save some
children and persons that might live when their abusers are dead, I don't
particularly like the idea of a war, though then again, when the nazi's
or the likes want grab power they can have another war for all I care to
stop them, but I think it usualy kills and wounds not guilty ones, too,
which is not nice.

Writing your trauma's away, mister? And what if I would, I didn't invite
you in person to read this page, isn't it? But no, I don't think so, altough
I've a certain need to at least make some things clear to at least some
who may want to know, and in that sense this seems to have a purpose, apart
from the obvious purpose of producing at least more truth and hopefully
relevance than a lot of other sources ever do, preferably using my capacaties
right. And my life and the encounters in it do make me think and of course
pray, whatever the right terminology is, and in that context I find certain
subjects important, and when people are aware I write this, they at least
in rest and when desired in privateness to notice of my words, which in
essence is good, though I'm not sure how much I achieve in all directions
I'd like to.

I've mentioned the ultra right myself lately in circuits where I was
pretty unliking the responses, years ago the ultra right was a swear word,
it would lead to immedeate disapproval even giving it much thought, but
there were people I saw even in sort of an acknowledging response, which
is way beyond yacky. That is sort of like 'real I'm seriously bringing this
subject forward to test you, what do you think about such ideas?', with
a yeah well you know attitude in some of the environment. Maybe not amazing,
but it seems certain people never learn, this stuff never worked for anything
worth while, and again it would be given place, even by (between I guess
major quotes) christians. I guess in families of child abusers and other
of such below utter dispicable things, what can one expect? Well a serious
to get away from that. For one thing. Or you'l be judged by me of even wanting
to conspire with such, which is bad judgement.

Computer Networks, sequencers?

I've been into sequencing lately a bit, because I thought it might be fun
to put steinbergs' cubase sequencer/audio processing demo package on a at
least half modern PC with a small sony speaker and a small multimedia stereo
set indirectly coupled to it, unfortunately without a midi (or other) keyboard,
and I don't have the funds to make the demo a real version, so all work
is lost after shutdown.

I've recorded
this piece
as a small example of what the package can do when not overly used, I played
around with it after some years, and basically tried the for normal use
important features in a few hours, being interested in a few plugins provided
by cubase, such as the bass simulator (coincidence?), the builtin audio
(VST mixer path) effects such as reverb and some other, and the compressor.
And I used the steinberg drum plugin to play around with the bass and snare
and high hat and cymbal samples therein, together with the reverb and compressor,
that was sort of the self imposed assignment. Additionally, I found it fun
to play with the bass simulator, which is maybe not top rate in the normal
synthesis sense, but certainly fun and capable enough.

I couldn't resist doing a direct comparison with my string simulator
to see wether I'm beaten beyond reproach to make further efforts into non-cutting
edge hobbyism... I did some more sounds recently, mainly with the soundlib
charged pms program, which makes no wav files but drives audio directly,
in real time, which can on most computers I work on run maybe three strings
real time, and I think I've been playing around with non-linear string clamps,
meaning the end points where the string is suspended behave non-linearly,
and I think the last version (this wasn't last week) has a delay in the
amp simulator feedback path, that is the feedback from all the strings over
a non-linear amplifier is delayed before the strings pick up the amp sound
again, by for instance 1/5 a second, which makes the standing waves though
the amp, and the direct feedback sound parts more like a guitar in normal
setup.

An in short my thinking with certain people and more was easily confirmed:
one sound was enough to know that what I've built with that is quite a different
ballgame, and that there may be more top synth sounds, but this one will
not easily be obliviated.

The recording is just to have some fun and show what is possible with
such a sequencer and certian simple musical ideas. For instance for people
with some knowledge in the field, the obvious (over) use of compression
is a theme. And of course getting the sound mixed and processed together
right.

The network seems not natural in this combination, though I might mention
I'd like to run distributed audio application, which is hot enough topic,
and I did do some experiments in the direction I post some results from.

I've been playing around with various pc's, some with windows 2000 servers
on them, seeing what it all can do, sharing, tcp/ip links, various network
cards, two per server, being carefull with an existing domain, and testing
various web browser constellations. I've had the microsoft web server in
2000 serving pages, also with sql scripts in them, but that for a general
server using iis for sql (direct) queries is a security anoyance, it may,
depending on the scheme, already be a problem to get a proper page served
on a neighbouring computer being logged on with a different password. Well
well. Anyhow the sql server runs, it links with iis, and also with access
using odbc, though there to there sometimes are strange problems, which
seems solved, but I find the various sequrity and link types confusing in
the sense that they make limited sense to me, but then again having a matrix
with user rights per user and per service kind in the manager is not bad
in itself, it just seems that windows sequrity is hung up so much on domains
that basically one needs to attach everything on a per user or group basis,
which is not always handy or usefull on a basically socket based connection.

I took a sql C example from the microsoft SQL server cd, messed around
a bit (just a bit in fact), and after finding from the great soft one's
makefile equivalent that all libraries are just as equal simply linked them
all with the cygwin compiler (for those who find it fun: basically an ls
*.lib in backquotes, how crude does it get?), and in a few seconds I had
a in this case command line application which neatly selects and interacts
with an example sql database on the server, fast even, it seems, and not
using pipes, it runs on an adjacent server, too. Changing the database made
me easily access records from a 1Gig client database, as it seems also with
no problem.

Alternatively, I got mySQL, which I could even easily connect to with
tcl/tk, which is quite good, there's a webserver there, too, and of course
that language in capable enough hands is quite powerfull to make working
and even reliable interfaces which look more than decent in hours. Having
sql queries returned as (parts of) list is quite natural and works nice,
though of course one may wonder why not put an about 10000 record big dataset
simply in a tcl variable, that may be quite more flexible and quite efficient,
as I have before. And put some of that in bwise blocks, of course.

I'm not at all satisfied with the 2000 server interconnectivity possibilities
in my hands, yet. I get them to work fine enough, and shares and all that
works, but considering the manager window, more than a few routing and bridging
and filtering possibilities are present, and I don't find them working straightforward
enough, not in shift control alt f 7 sense, but menus in the manager don't
even make sense enough, and I'm sure my network knowledge is not in the
same thought experiment as that of some programmers. Then again thus far
I can make most things work, but I'd prefer myself to be at the level of
understanding everything between route advertisements in the few major protocols,
and multicasting data and its high level interface, prerably group sockets
(I know, I know, just talk, I know my stuff enough, don't worry I won't
put pvm out of a job, others did, though then again, d what? (dcom), oh,
and don't forget winsocks II, of and while you're at it I think I read 600
or so bugs beg for at least 2000 server service pack II).

Wanna have breakfast in america?

Diary ?

Is this a diary, still, or what? At some point I decided to use quite some
space under that heading to at times ferment, probably teach, or in general
make my opinions and knowledge, as far as it indeed prooves to be that, known
an audience that is at least out there, considering mails and pagecounter
hits and more than a few persons in real life.

The idea of the diary is normally a personal writing, and about anything
a person wants to entrust to paper, which is normally never made public. Such
a diary I've never had, nor had the desire to have, and the idea on the web
was mainly because in life at that time there wasn't much truth or lets say
emotional normalness, and because I felt like sharing at least some thoughts
and feelings with some who either did the same or who I'd want to reach,
or simply because I thought there might be use for such unpaid and unscrutinized
writing in public.

Probably not without reason freedom of speech even has been a major issue
in western thinking, without question springing from american soil, though
freedom to speak about religeous and other atrocities in the end of the middle
ages together with the widespread use of bookprint in some form happened
in europe just the same.

Now how do such general thought end up on a diary page?

Because in my direct life, they are completely relevant and practical issues
and motivating ideas. I don't feel that free to speak about what I seriously
and not in badness think as I would want. I'm sure that that is normal in
an imperfect world, to protect friends' interest, to not reveal to much of
the personal, to make badness forgiven, maybe, but there are important lies
and evils in this world, and in the world directly around me that I cannot
let live without at least exposure, and when there is hardly anyone I can
seriously raise those subjects with because they feel threatened by possibly
real threats in their live or in that of others I at least want to make clear
what I think for those who have access to these pages, which is luckily just
about everyone in the western world, at least.

And I'm sure at least I've raised subjects and produced truth which have
affected people, probably also trough these means, and some even wrote me
so or otherwise made it clear. I stand for what I belief in enough to normally
speaking communicate clearly and openly about it, but few people would seem
to have either the interest or lets say the guts or freedom, nicer put, to
do so. But with rich families, who are not in power because of their being
right, but simply because they're filthy rich, illuminaty, nazi's and catholics,
and other organisations like them, wanting to rule also my world, I think
it is quite important to kick them out of more than little power (completely
is probably unrealistic), which in western history sense isn't alien and
achieveble enough, at state, gouvernment, social, religeous and personal
level, and formally, in most cases.

Historically, that is by exposure, too, by open gouvernment, by politics
even, which are not all too obscure, by having freedom and speaking about
what is important in those ways, as the greeks professed, too. The occult
is not called hidden for nothing. When the sources of life have starting points
in a spiritual which noone realy oversees, which is made of darkness and
powers of such, it is not a surprise when the fruits of such lifes aren't
good. And when illuminati, satanists of various incarnations, world wide
fake religions and such parties have important positions in life, it is going
to be damned for sure. And the only way out of there towards freedom I'm
sure is the truth. Which has been made fun of by some in the past, when I've
mentioned it, but I don't care much.

Engineers without thruth are worth nothing. 'My demon tells me to put these
wires here, and that these kinds of design are the better ones'. Huh? What?
Seriously?

How many parts are in a TV set? Maybe a 1000? Little resistors, capacitors,
a few hands full of coils, depending on wether it is a new or old type, hundreds
of transistors, or tubes of course when it is an old set, and maybe hundreds
of thousands, in the form of chips, on newer ones, and maybe even millions
in the memory of a 100 HZ tv, or one with picture in picure capacities. Lets
say at least a thousand recogniseable physical parts go into a decent, working
tv set. Electronics parts exist with anything from 2 to maybe a few hundred
wires. Most conventional simple electronics parts have 2 or three wires,
2 for resistors and capacitors and simple coils, 3 for most transistors and
their equivalent.

How many ways are there to connect those 1000 parts with lets say at least
two wires up? The first wire can be chosen from 2000 connection points. The
second has 1999 ways to go, at cetera, so we have 2000! (faculty)
possibilities to connect them all up, though there are some possiblities to
exclude here, because for instance certain connections make no sense electronically.
Still, if I take a working TV set apart by desoldering all the components,
put them in a box, and give them to someone who thinks about little anymals
creeping out of the sea as something of similar complexity as a working tv
set, and let them play around, promising them a million when they end up
with a working tv set, I'd not go poor, I'm positive. That number of possibilities
is HUGE. If we take 5 parts, we'd have roughly 10! possibilities, which is
10*9*8*7*6*5*4*3*2=3628800, almost 4 million. Maybe they'd not try
shortcircuiting every part as a possibility, so we arrive at 3628799 posibilities,
and maybe some other cases aren't likely, but simply playing around with
them electronics parts at random, is not even going to get you a 5 part piece
of machine together right with more probabilty than winning the lottery every
time one tries a combination.

Well well. That means that is a tv set works, we can be quite sure that
someone designed the thing, and didn't just throw some parts together, hoping
the thing will make an image. So the 'key' to the tv machine is quite complicated,
though the testing wether it works is easy enough, crt's by themselves make
no images, realy, they don't. And the number of ways of using the same parts
even in a some messed up way is staggering, and will hardly ever make a working
machine, maybe a few parts could be exchanged, maybe a few taken out, a number
could be reversed (because that makes no difference with 2 wire parts, often,
though certainly not always), but realy messing with the connections and
parts in a tv will usually make it inoperative straight away, there are not
many alternative circuits to be made with the same parts, realy not that
many. And 2000! or so is an incredible number, it probably has at least
over hundreds of zeros, 2000*1999*1998 is a little under 2*2*2*1000*1000*1000,
which means little under 8 billion, etc. Those are astronomical figures, not
even atomic number figures, more along the lines of the number of atoms on
the moon or so, just a guess, but anyhow, the probability of cracking the
code which is by putting a tv together from its parts is incredibly negligable
when one has no knowledge of tv's and electronics. And even then, the puzzle
of putting a tv together from a set of parts which happen to be able to do
exactly that is not trivial either, in fact quite hard. Electronicists who
design TV's all by themselves are scarce too, I'm sure, which makes it an
interesting challenge in general.

The comparison is not geared toward explaining the impossibilities of non-creationist
views, but to make clear that when there is a complicated machine such as
nature or man or society, or even the spiritual, one would better not be
so incredibly optimistic that similar considerations as with respect to tv's
do not hold, and are of great importance. In other words, we may make a little
polution and think we can get away with it, but at some point our exhousts
are going to make nature messed up if we push it. When man is seen as the
product of evolution, there is remarkable little variation in his appearance
throughout history, and the complexity of the brain is far greater than the
complexity of a TV set. Supposing that nature or man works certain ways,
such as normal thinking, our senses and control of our muscles, our metabolism
and even reproduction of ourselves within quite small parameter changes overall,
it is not unreasonable to assume that the TV set comparison goes for our
medical and even psychological constitution, that is if we are out of certain
correct connections, our bodies and minds are not working much anymore. Remarkably
enough, medical science has made clear enough there is quite some redundancy
and repair and take-over potiential in our bodies, though the very existance
as it is is major proof of the idea that knowledge about detailed and course
processes and parts of human beings, when well founded in their physics, can
lead to corrections along the lines of what humanly is correct according to
normal layout and design.

Messing people up is easy enough, there are bombs which can do that job
rigorously enough to kill millions even, within a very short timespan, messing-up
capacity in that sense means nothing much anymore. Power to heal and make
right is another story. Medical science can be quite miraculous for normal
observers, and of course that takes them more than little effort, knowledge,
equipment and brainpower.

In society sense, many societies and social systems are known enough
not to work right. That, too, it seems it not al too hard to achieve.
Messing peoples' relationships up, or making a system corrupted or bad or
against certain weak groups in general isn't too hard to do, probably, though
there is the power factor involved to affect people and groups of people
enough to bring something about. Bombs do that, but not in a social way.
False information historically is a obvious way to try to achieve social
damage, blackmail, maybe with bombs, is another. Information geared at something
else than a persons' well being may work with some effort or time. A doctor
could even prescribe a patient a lethal drug, which would work, but soon
enough the doctor wouldn't be trusted anymore,
probably.

Is it reasonable to speak of a human 'design' in social sense? Probably
to quite some extend, though without question protagoras wasn't far of an
important viwe, that man is the measure of all things. Animals aren't going
to teach men much, nature won't much either, maybe math and physics have
a thing or two to say at human level, and the rest is either man thinking
or teaching themselves, or the inevitable source of misery, mistery and salvation
for some: the spiritual.

I'm convinced that what I've learned long ago from I think a reliable enough
person that sense (through the bible course I did at the time) is true: by
nature man is not capable of spiritual contact with God who is God, so that
apart from those lucky enough to be saved by Him, though His Spirit, not
even one person can live according to the real Gods will, or be in touch
with Him in prayer. And the misery that comes from that is world wide known
as the sinfull nature of natural man having produced all kinds of misery,
lies, traps, abuse, exploitation, bondage, killing, and decay. Natural man
can do science, be literary, maybe even be decent enough person towards many
others, but sin has done damage, and it shows.

Is it reasonable to still speak about a certain image of man as being the
main image to see as the design for man or mankind? I am sure that depends
on what one acknowledges, is willing to put to scientific scrutiny, honesty,
has access to see and compare, and on ones' state of living.

For certain, a pretty model is hard to find by chance, and lets say even
deprived and decaying man and mankind can see the beauty as objective value
of some person. The why is a logical and probably relevant question. Social
justice in certain ways is not too hard to think about. Intellectually, one
may want ot at least make clear that apart from wether people deserve to
live at all, it is not unreasonable to make sure that people have enough to
eat, that they are not made to live in miserable circumstance, that sort
of stuff. That probably isn't too hard. Wether a certain person should be
president, or wether it is at all desirable to have a form of state and if
so what it is supposed to be is harder. It may be possible to see errors
in existing, observable ones, but to make one up, let it exist, and let it
become something that is worth while is probably at least hard.

Does the TV comparison hold for society in the sense that it is put together
in such a way that taking a few parts out or misconnecting them will render
it not functional or something completely bad ? Society is made of many humans,
and maybe has external source of power, such as the spiritual, and of course
the natural surroundings and forces such as the environment, the weather,
etc. What if we have a model society and we change one little piece of it?
Assuming we can imagine such a model society, the thought experiment would
probably lead us to think there is little effect if one little piece changes.

Of course our society isn't so complicated, we just do so and so, and
it works...

This piece I write a week later, I didn't reread the former, but I just
though about experiments I did in highschool, and probably even before,
when I was into the basics of digital processing. Lets say we have 4 lamps
on a row, and we're doing a light show, which I found at the time quite
fun enough, probably one level under the music itself. How on earth, was
my question at about the time I had my first (red led) digital watch, which
was before, when such was quite new, I think about '76, is it possible to
make a piece of electronics drive a number of lights in a sequence, such
as for instance in one of those light hoses, a running light. I'd have known
how to make such idea work with mechanical means, a rotary drive and a set
of circular contacts would do the trick, and relais, which I knew already
when I was quite small could make me switch 2 lamps on and of alternatingly,
which was a trick with a capacitor and good enough relays to not get stuck
halfway, but getting electronics to do for instance 4 lights on a row seemed
hard. A delay line was my though for some time, I guess around 6th grade
(not sure, but somewhere around that time I started to gather and use serious
digital parts, so it must have been before), where a row of capacitors is
coupled, for instance with resistors, or preferably, as I'd know from my
philips ee2003 experimentor kit and library books, with driver transistors
in between to make the lights not slowly dim or undim but flip on. That
idea in itself I can make work now, its not that bad, though the problem
at the time was that when coupling over resistors, a first order network
of resistor driving a next capacitor etc., makes not for a good result.
The first stages flip on quickly, and charge curves are not to easily voltage
sensed, that takes either ingeneous circuits, or more than a few parts,
which were expensive for me at age of 11 or so at the time.

I did know how to make a monostable multivibrator, which is serious electronicist
language, no kidding, you can find it in more than one book or datasheet,
and I'd have known how to put them in a circle, which was a fun enough though,
but every stage would be made in the fashion of a schmitt trigger with
some extra circuitry, which would take 2 transistors, a handful of resistors,
and then some more a piece, and a I said at the time even those parts were
relatively expensive for me. And it wasn't a pleasing enough solution either,
with my current (and also some years later knowledge) I would have been
able to make the speed of such a system controllable with one pot (instead
of a seperate one for each stage) by playing with the emitter voltage, or
better put the grounding voltage of the resistor connected with them, but
the whole system wasn't pleasing enough, and also it would do only one thing:
a one direction, single light on running light. Then again that idea in
itself was good enough, coming from electronics, where it would also run
at thousands of times a second, and never wear out or get dirty contacts,
or hickups, or loads of clicking relais.

A few years maybe later, I was completely into (not still) standard digital
circuits, called 74 series ttl circuits, which probably even this very day
are still used in university courses to practice with, and in modern version
appear in probably most computers in the form of form instance 74HC(T)/AC244
or 573 buffers for external lines or busses. The 7400 at the time was a
14 pin Dual In Line package, where the pins are sticking out of a maybe
one inch long piece of black plastic, about a centrimeter wide, bent to
form two rows of pins pointing down into the circuit board, costing about
half a dollar from normal electronics suppliers, containing 4 'nand' gates,
which are logical gates which have two inputs which must be given both a
high voltage to make the output 0, or any other combination of only high
or high and low voltage to let the output produce a high voltage, or logically
interpreted, a '1'.

I learned soon enough when I was reading some text and experimentors
books on the subject, even under the blankets with a flashlight I vividly
remember, simply because I wanted to crack some counter circuit and didn't
want to wait until the next day..., that every logical circuit (minus special
'bus-drivers') can be made from this standard gate. And realy, that means
every. The logic goes as follows. There are various combinatory circuits,
which can always be defined completely by their logical behaviour in the
form of input output relations. One puts all the inputs on a row, as columns,
writes down all possible combinations, by binary counting, and for each
possible combination, one writes down the desired or observed output values,
1 or 0. Having that that table can be implemented by and-or plane logic,
which works for any finite size table, and the logic in such a buildup can
easily enough be build from nand gates, just as it can be proven that any
logical circuit can be, one can multiply input pin set size because they
have more than one input, and the gates invert, so inversions can be made,
which is the only logical function for one input, one output basic bivalued
building blocks, except for a pass function, which can be made from two
inverters. From there generic composition or decomposition rules can make
for everything logical in a combinatorical or function sense (in generates
out without internal memory), provably so.

On a next page, I'll go into the reason for mentioning these subjects,
also specifically in the context I put forward, which probably is quite more
to the point than I'd normally think even now. In the time I made digital
circuits, and became quite a master at them in fact (when I was 13 or so),
I never did that for other reasona than that I liked to, or that it made
me feel better to test my intelligence on them, neven to make social comparisons,
or suspecting such would have even the slightest spiritual impact.